Secondary Navigation

Gripes about LOTR films

Hey all, Anthony here-- We have following with great interest the debate mythsoc has on the LOTR films, I especially love David Bratmans comments and those we

Message 1 of 8
, Nov 7, 2003

Hey all,
Anthony here--
We have following with great interest the debate mythsoc has on the
LOTR films, I especially love David Bratmans comments and those we
spoke with at MythCon, well to add more fuel to the proverbial fire
we were asked (Jessica and I) to review the following two titles

Jessica did the ROTK title which is pretty scathing toward the author
and the other I did, which I include some interesting film spoilers
from the title concerning Aragorn and the Mouth of Sauron. We have
pretty much had it with blatant changes in the text since film one,
but have been pretty tolerant in my opinion but the "spoilers" I
write of are over the top, aside from the TTT, but don't get me
started on that,
In Fellowship,
Anthony
www.herenistarion.org

David S. Bratman

Interesting. I was particularly amused by Jessica s account of Jude Fisher painting Tolkien as some kind of incompetent writer. Certainly there are parts of

Message 2 of 8
, Nov 7, 2003

Interesting. I was particularly amused by Jessica's account of Jude Fisher
painting Tolkien as some kind of incompetent writer. Certainly there are
parts of LOTR which could stand literary improvement, and you don't have to
be a good writer yourself to say so; but I see this as part of a campaign,
which I've noted here before ("Re: TTT review, startling statement",
1/12/03), to claim that Jackson has improved a lousy old book that nobody
ever really liked much anyway.

- David Bratman

ftl_publications

... have to ... campaign, ... nobody ... I feel this is, in part, a case where Jackson and Jackson s defenders are apologizing (that s not apologizing as in

>Certainly there are
> parts of LOTR which could stand literary improvement, and you don't

have to

> be a good writer yourself to say so; but I see this as part of a

campaign,

> which I've noted here before ("Re: TTT review, startling statement",
> 1/12/03), to claim that Jackson has improved a lousy old book that

nobody

> ever really liked much anyway.

I feel this is, in part, a case where Jackson and Jackson's defenders
are apologizing (that's not "apologizing" as in "regret,"
that's "apologizing" as in "defending") for the wholesale departures
from Tolkien's text.

I also see 2 other factors at work here:

Factor 1: Contemporary screenwriting is very forumlaic. In
screenwriting courses, there is a very strict dramatic line that
students are encouraged to adhere to, and departures from that
formula are given as examples of "bad" (or in the text referred
to, "amateur") writing. It is interesting to note that those who are
making the comments ARE connected to the screenwriting community
rather than the literary community.

Factor 2: There are people who never were able to get through Lord of
the Rings (it certainly took me several tries, and I was an
enthusiast of The Hobbit!), and therefore have memories of the LotR
text being ponderous and boring. We may disagree (I certainly do),
but they're out there. I wouldn't be surprised if such people are
among those who say that they prefer Jackson's version (finding it
an "improvement" over Tolkien's text), and would agree with an
assessment that Tolkien's writing wasn't very good.

(Now, just to make clear where I'm coming from, although I found much
to enjoy in Jackson's movies, I do not find them preferable to
Tolkien's original text, and I do believe that Tolkien's LotR is a
literary masterpiece. I would characterize JRRT's text
as "brilliant.")

... Maybe in part, but I don t see why it s necessary to bash Tolkien in order to defend Jackson. Jackson himself has done no Tolkien-bashing of this kind.

Message 4 of 8
, Nov 10, 2003

At 09:19 AM 11/9/2003 , Joan Marie Verba wrote:

>I feel this is, in part, a case where Jackson and Jackson's defenders
>are apologizing (that's not "apologizing" as in "regret,"
>that's "apologizing" as in "defending") for the wholesale departures
>from Tolkien's text.

Maybe in part, but I don't see why it's necessary to bash Tolkien in order
to defend Jackson. Jackson himself has done no Tolkien-bashing of this
kind. There are places where he's justified his changes with the
implication that he knows story-telling better than Tolkien does, but he's
never said so directly, and he's never sweepingly criticized LOTR as a bad
book, which the defenders I'm referring to have done.

>Factor 1: Contemporary screenwriting is very forumlaic. In
>screenwriting courses, there is a very strict dramatic line that
>students are encouraged to adhere to, and departures from that
>formula are given as examples of "bad" (or in the text referred
>to, "amateur") writing. It is interesting to note that those who are
>making the comments ARE connected to the screenwriting community
>rather than the literary community.

Screenwriting (not just contemporary) indeed tends towards the formulaic,
which is why there are so many bad and wearisomely predictable films out
there. It doesn't have to be so. The best films aren't that way, and
they're not unsuccessful. I think of the film "Memento" which broke more
screenwriting conventions than you could shake a stick at, and worked
splendidly. And I recently saw a film about two people who, despite every
opportunity and a clear inclination, do NOT commit adultery. I could
hardly believe it.

Before Jackson's LOTR was released, I was on a convention panel speculating
about the films (this was not the one at Mythcon), which was dominated by
an audience member who insisted that, as if it were a law of nature, that
Jackson MUST maul the structure of the book to fit it into the standard
structure which all screenplays must follow. As it turned out, Jackson did
nothing of the sort. Such changes as he made in general structure were
much less drastic than this man insisted on, and were not to fit it into
that mold.

>Factor 2: There are people who never were able to get through Lord of
>the Rings (it certainly took me several tries, and I was an
>enthusiast of The Hobbit!), and therefore have memories of the LotR
>text being ponderous and boring. We may disagree (I certainly do),
>but they're out there. I wouldn't be surprised if such people are
>among those who say that they prefer Jackson's version (finding it
>an "improvement" over Tolkien's text), and would agree with an
>assessment that Tolkien's writing wasn't very good.

Anybody who wants to say that they personally prefer the book to the movie,
that's their personal taste and they're welcome to it. But the people I
was referring to said things like "Frodo ... eventually loses the sympathy
of MOST readers" and that "NOBODY ever read Tolkien for the writing,"
emphases added. As Shippey said about some other examples, "they insist
perversely in making statements not about literary merit, where their
opinions could rest undisprovable, but about popular appeal, where they can
be shown up beyond all possibility of doubt."

For the fact is that no matter how many people out there found LOTR
difficult - and there's no novel ever written that appeals to everybody -
it has overall been the most popular and lasting of its century. This
suggests that whatever its literary merit - and people like Harold Bloom
most eager to attack that probably wouldn't care for the movies either -
Tolkien did know something about story-telling and popular appeal. And
thus any changes to his story made by film-makers, unless their grasp of
these things is more profound than his, are liable to be for the worse.

- David Bratman

David S. Bratman

... *sigh* I meant people who prefer the movie to the book, of course. _Both_ parties are welcome to their personal taste. I m in the prefer the book to

Message 5 of 8
, Nov 10, 2003

At 07:25 AM 11/10/2003 , I wrote:

>Anybody who wants to say that they personally prefer the book to the movie,
>that's their personal taste and they're welcome to it.

*sigh* I meant people who "prefer the movie to the book," of course.
_Both_ parties are welcome to their personal taste. I'm in the "prefer the
book to the movie" camp myself, of course.

- David Bratman

aveeris523@aol.com

A friend of mine has an excellent T-shirt bearing the words: Never judge a book by it s movie. Steve Gaddis [Non-text portions of this message have been

Message 6 of 8
, Nov 10, 2003

A friend of mine has an excellent T-shirt bearing the words: "Never judge a
book by it's movie."
Steve Gaddis

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

dianejoy@earthlink.net

Where can I get one of those in 3x? ---djb ... From: aveeris523@aol.com Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 23:16:45 EST To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: